X hits on this document

440 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

24 / 115

pending in the superior court for 26 months.  The court had already granted numerous and lengthy continuances at defense request.  Defendant had repeatedly waived his right to a speedy trial, but had also expressed frustration at counsel’s continual need for continuances.  

Attorney Miller, who had previously defended defendant on these same charges, had been reappointed over two years before, on March 7, 1988.  Miller had previously stated that he expected to be ready for trial in March 1989 and again in July 1989.  In November 1989, he stated that he could be ready with new cocounsel, Maple, in March or April 1990.  The court did not abuse its discretion in failing to credit Miller’s bare assertion, which he declined to explain further, that he needed more preparation time.

Attorney Maple was more recently appointed, but had had several months to acquaint himself with the evidence.  Maple did not indicate that he was personally unprepared for trial; rather, his motion rested on the assertion that the paint samples, of which the prosecution had obtained an expert comparison analysis, and related photographs, had not yet been made fully available to the defense.  The court ordered all results and photographs produced; indicated it would, if desired, appoint a defense expert to analyze the samples; and would consider a request for a short continuance on these grounds if and when the issue arose.  In the absence of concrete information as to the length of time a defense expert analysis would take, the court did not abuse its discretion in beginning the lengthy capital jury selection process on March 27.

Defendant cites Little v. Superior Court (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 667 for the proposition that a trial court may not lawfully require counsel to proceed to trial unprepared.  In Little, the deputy public defender assigned to represent the defendant was unable to appear at the preliminary hearing because of a calendaring error.  (Id. at p. 670.)  A supervising deputy appeared, explained

Document info
Document views440
Page views440
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 14:29:35 UTC 2016
Pages115
Paragraphs595
Words35484

Comments